I'm wondering, what perspective does philosophy add to game theory? All of the philosophical musings at the beginning of the article seem to describe what "moral" beings should do. This seems unrelated to what "rational" agents must do, which is one of the simpler questions of game theory. Do philosophical arguments guide, for example, how one might design utility functions? I have studied enough game theory and attended enough conferences and his hasn't showed up except to argue that a definition is perhaps reasonable (and then we wait for the elegant algorithm/analysis punchline anyway).
I think game theory isn't too concerned about how one might design utility functions, it is mostly interested in what one should do when utility functions are already given
> what "rational" agents must do, which is one of the simpler questions of game theory
In this way, is Game Theory on the opposite side of Behavioral Economics?
The interest in choice architecture and motivations lead me to think they were related and aligned. Behavioral Economics, afaiu, doesn't count on a heck of rational agency.
